Take Studies with a Grain of Salt: Practical Wisdom for Trainers and Clients
As a trainer, I often find myself falling down the rabbit hole of the latest scientific research. My clients do it too, and don't even get me started on the general public or the news cycle. We see a headline, skim the abstract, and suddenly decide we need to overhaul our entire existence based on one finding.
Unfortunately, we do not live in a sterile, controlled laboratory.
The reality is that practicality often beats rigid adherence to studies. Whether it’s the debate between "science-based lifting" versus "bro-science," the winner is rarely the one with the best citation list. The winner is almost always the method you can stick to consistently.
While scientific literature is an incredible tool for data and knowledge, it is not the ultimate source of wisdom. Here is why you need to take studies with a grain of salt and how to apply fitness knowledge without losing your mind.
Why Real Life Beats the Lab
Studies are designed to isolate variables. Scientists work hard to control the environment so they can say, with some certainty, that X causes Y. But in your life, there is no control group. There is only the "chaos theory" of unpredictability.
Life throws curveballs that are impossible to track in a clinical setting. Stress from your job, a bad night of sleep because the dog was barking, your specific limb length, your hydration levels, or even your mood—all of these factors influence your results.
Science might tell you that a specific tempo—like 4 seconds down, 2 seconds hold, 2 seconds up—is optimal for hypertrophy (muscle growth). That sounds great on paper. But if focusing on that tempo makes you hate your workout, or if you are so focused on counting seconds that you forget to push hard, you lose.
The workout you do with intensity and consistency will always outperform the "scientifically perfect" workout you dread doing.
The Contradiction Trap
If you look hard enough, you can find a study to contradict almost any other study. This is why "cherry-picking" data is such a problem in the fitness industry.
Let's look at the classic coffee example. For years, there was a prevailing belief based on observational studies that coffee caused cancer. It seemed like a solid link. However, researchers eventually realized they had missed a massive confounding variable: people who drank black coffee in those studies also tended to smoke cigarettes.
Once they adjusted for smoking, the narrative flipped. Now, we know coffee is packed with antioxidants and may actually help prevent certain cancers.
If you had lived by the early studies, you would have deprived yourself of a morning brew for no reason. This happens in fitness constantly. One year eggs are bad; the next they are a superfood. One year cardio kills gains; the next it's essential for recovery.
Individual Differences: You Are Unique
Studies deal in averages. They tell us what works for most people in a specific group. But you are not a statistic. You have a unique genetic makeup, training age, and injury history.
Take muscle building. Many textbooks and studies will tell you that 8-12 reps is the "hypertrophy range." If you do 7 or 13, you might feel like you are failing. But more recent research shows that you can build muscle with anywhere from 5 to 30 reps, provided you take the set close to fatigue.
Some people thrive on high reps. Their joints feel better, and they get a better pump. Others have a high percentage of fast-twitch muscle fibers and respond better to heavy, low-rep work. If you force yourself into a specific box just because a study said so, you might be fighting against your own biology.
Applying Knowledge Wisely
So, should we ignore science? Absolutely not. That leads to the dark ages of fitness where we drink raw eggs because Rocky did it. The goal is to use studies as a compass, not a map.
Guidelines, Not Rules
Use data to inform your decisions, but use wisdom to make the final call. Wisdom is the ability to make sense of information within the context of your actual life.
If a study says you need 8 hours of sleep for optimal recovery, but you are a new parent who can only get 5, stressing about the missing 3 hours will only hurt you more. Instead, accept the limitation and adjust your training volume to match your current recovery capacity.
Balancing Novelty and Routine
Science tells us that "novelty" prevents plateaus. This is where the concept of "muscle confusion" comes from. However, there is also a learning curve to exercise. If you change your program every single week to "confuse" your muscles, you never get good enough at the movements to overload them effectively.
You need a balance. Stick to a program long enough to see progress (usually 4-8 weeks), but change it up when things get stale or joints get achy.
The "It Depends" Factor
Whenever someone asks, "Is this exercise good?" the only honest answer is "It depends."
We often measure an exercise's value by one or two metrics, usually strength or muscle growth. But exercise has endless benefits.
Maybe you choose a less "optimal" exercise because it hurts your knees less.
Maybe you run not to burn fat, but to clear your head for mental health.
Maybe you do Zumba not for the cardio adaptation, but because it’s the only time you see your friends.
To live by the study is to die by the study. If you ignore the human element—enjoyment, pain relief, mental clarity—you miss the point of training entirely.
Playing Devil’s Advocate
To be fair, we have to acknowledge where "bro-science" fails and where strict science wins.
Studies are fantastic for debunking harmful myths. For a long time, people believed that lifting heavy weights would make women "bulky." Science has proven repeatedly that female hormonal profiles make accidental bulkiness nearly impossible. This knowledge has liberated millions of women to lift heavy and get strong without fear.
Similarly, we used to think static stretching before a run prevented injury. Research later showed it might actually decrease power output and stability. Now, we use dynamic warm-ups. That is a win for science.
The danger lies in the middle ground. Ignoring science leads to ineffective (or dangerous) training. Worshipping science leads to "paralysis by analysis."
Action Over Analysis
The biggest problem with obsessing over studies is that it complicates things to the point of inaction. I see trainers and clients freezing up because they are terrified their workout isn't "optimal."
Here is the truth: Action causes results.
A mediocre program done with savage consistency will always beat the perfect, science-based program that you only do sporadicallly. We forget that getting the rust off our bodies, moving our joints, and elevating our heart rates are wins in themselves.
As a trainer, my job isn't to lecture clients on the Krebs cycle or the latest electromyography (EMG) data on glute activation. My job is to simplify the science so they can take action.
The Bottom Line
Information is abundant; wisdom is scarce.
Studies are just data points. They are clues, not commandments. When you read a new study, ask yourself:
Does this apply to my current lifestyle?
Is the difference it offers worth the effort it requires?
Can I do this consistently?
If the answer is no, file it away as "interesting" and get back to work. Don't let the pursuit of the perfect 1% improvement stop you from getting the 99% that comes from just showing up.
Take the study, learn from it, but always take it with a grain of salt.
Next Steps
Audit your routine: Are you doing something you hate just because you read it was "optimal"? Stop. Swap it for a variation you enjoy.
Focus on effort: Instead of worrying about the perfect rep range, focus on training close to failure with good form.
Simplify: If you are overwhelmed by data, strip your training back to the basics: push, pull, squat, hinge, carry.